Military commander removed after denouncing neo-Marxist critical race theory

[rjs330]

Imagine if those people worked over 100 hours a week every week sometimes over 24 hours without sleep in dangerous conditions, doing things that other people would be afraid to do, and getting paid far less than they could be making at a much easier job. Imagine if you got to see your family once or twice a year for just a few days. I think we should show a lot of gratitude to that group of people but there is always a few self centered people who do not appreciate anything that is done for them.

Sounds like more socialism to me.

 

[RDKirk]

I think he knows what he's talking about. He was in the military and had first hand experience. Hes not stupid.

A lot of "not stupid" people are calling things Marxist that are not Marxist. They're just using the label to rouse the rabble...which does tend to be stupid.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not what's happening. The military is engaged in critical race theory and social justice programs. They are engaged in Marxist views. All if this is about social programming and not equal consideration. They are dealing in equity and not equality. It's a political agenda and partisan politics.

They're not engaging in actual "critical race theory," either. Nor "Marxist" views. What the military is doing--at least their intention--is precisely the opposite of Marxism. Marxism seeks to emphasize that social class warfare is inevitable and irrevocable and must lead to conflict, while the military seeks to eliminate social class consciousness and certainly to eliminate class conflict within its ranks. Where Marxism emphasizes the bases of class, the military is trying to deconstruct the bases of class.

Deconstructing social class appears to be what's upsetting some people...but the military has always done that. That's why they cut everyone's hair and give everyone the same clothes to wear.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Imagine if those people worked over 100 hours a week every week sometimes over 24 hours without sleep in dangerous conditions, doing things that other people would be afraid to do, and getting paid far less than they could be making at a much easier job. Imagine if you got to see your family once or twice a year for just a few days. I think we should show a lot of gratitude to that group of people but there is always a few self centered people who do not appreciate anything that is done for them.

Please stop with the lies. It is unbecoming of someone who is a Christian. I am on active duty and there is no one, no one working 100 hours a week, week after week. NO ONE! Just stop. Or put on a uniform and serve.

 

[All Englands Skies]

A lot of "not stupid" people are calling things Marxist that are not Marxist. They're just using the label to rouse the rabble...which does tend to be stupid.

The term "Marxist" is now used in the same capacity as the term "Fascist", a catch-all that is used out of context, without any real thought or analysis and just to smear those who are against in a lot of cases.

I mean when somebody calls out somebody for being Fascist, how often do they do so because their target believes in Fascist Corporatist economy, everything within the state, a fascist social care policy, etc?
Usually the person they are calling Fascist is just Xenophobic and/or racist. (and in some cases, they're not even that)

 

[disciple Clint]

Please stop with the lies. It is unbecoming of someone who is a Christian. I am on active duty and there is no one, no one working 100 hours a week, week after week. NO ONE! Just stop. Or put on a uniform and serve.

Try a deployment on an aircraft carrier. Just because you are not doing it does not mean that others are not and have not, get some experience before you call people who have been there liars. I can only surmise that all of your tours, if you have had more than one, have been in the rear with the gear.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Try a deployment on an aircraft carrier. Just because you are not doing it does not mean that others are not and have not, get some experience before you call people who have been there liars. I can only surmise that all of your tours, if you have had more than one, have been in the rear with the gear.

Well, you know what they say about assuming. I did do a tour on air craft carrier. USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70.

In the rear with the gear. I remember that from Full Metal Jacket. Good movie. I got a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart guarding all that gear. Yep, that's me, LTjg REMF. Some one has to make sure the pillows are fluffed and the fridge is stocked with goodies for the guys.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, you know what they say about assuming. I did do a tour on air craft carrier. USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70.

In the rear with the gear. I remember that from Full Metal Jacket. Good movie. I got a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart guarding all that gear. Yep, that's me, LTjg REMF. Some one has to make sure the pillows are fluffed and the fridge is stocked with goodies for the guys.

and I am certain you did a real good job on those pillows while you were getting all that sack time.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

and I am certain you did a real good job on those pillows while you were getting all that sack time.

210 hours a week

 

[KCfromNC]

I think we should show a lot of gratitude to that group of people but there is always a few self centered people who do not appreciate anything that is done for them.

Yep. Some posts even call the organization out as dangerous because of how it is funded.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A lot of "not stupid" people are calling things Marxist that are not Marxist. They're just using the label to rouse the rabble...which does tend to be stupid.

Well to be fair, Marxism like most ideologies has taken many turns, twists, and changes over time. No-Marxism is probably the better term to use here....since it applies Marxist theory beyond the strict approach of dialectical materialism. It encompasses a culture specific approach to defining which group or groups are labeled "oppressors" and the "oppressed".

For example, in the US, the long history of racism and racial oppression means that the Neo-Marxists would have more success with labeling people into oppresser/oppressed categories based upon race....rather than wealth.

This shouldn't be confused with the Civil Rights movement of 50s....because despite it taking many forms, the one that ultimately won out was the version championed by MLK that sought to establish equality under the law (which is a clearly defined problem) and one that is easily recognized by laws which discriminated against certain races.

Marxism and it's modern Neo-Marxist incarnated are about the acquisition of power....for example, saying that someone deserves an important job (like a CEO or a Senator) because they are in a category of "oppressed" people....is a good example of Neo-Marxist thinking.

 

[RDKirk]

Marxism and it's modern Neo-Marxist incarnated are about the acquisition of power....for example, saying that someone deserves an important job (like a CEO or a Senator) because they are in a category of "oppressed" people....is a good example of Neo-Marxist thinking.

The military certain is not teaching that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I read an article yesterday that I can't find now....so please bear with me....I'll post it if I can find it.

What I read though, is that Lohmeier was denied a review of his case and no official explanation for what he said or wrote was given, so he has been denied any explanation of why he is accused of engaging in partisan politics

The reason for this, as he claims, is that if the DOD defines his discussion about "diversity and equity" training is included as the example of partisan politics he wasn't supposed to talk about....that's a tacit admission that the diversity and equity training within the military is indeed partisan politics...then the military would be the ones breaking the rules by incorporating political views into the military.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, you know what they say about assuming. I did do a tour on air craft carrier. USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70.

In the rear with the gear. I remember that from Full Metal Jacket. Good movie. I got a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart guarding all that gear. Yep, that's me, LTjg REMF. Some one has to make sure the pillows are fluffed and the fridge is stocked with goodies for the guys.

I agree that no one should be chastised for the role they played in the military, dangerous or not.

I also don't think the military is beyond legitimate criticism. Criticism of the military should not invoke any character attack on the critic.

 

[iluvatar5150]

In the rear with the gear. I remember that from Full Metal Jacket. Good movie. I got a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart guarding all that gear. Yep, that's me, LTjg REMF. Some one has to make sure the pillows are fluffed and the fridge is stocked with goodies for the guys.

Oh man, there's a FMJ nickname right there that would 100% get me a warning.

 

[RDKirk]

I read an article yesterday that I can't find now....so please bear with me....I'll post it if I can find it.

What I read though, is that Lohmeier was denied a review of his case and no official explanation for what he said or wrote was given, so he has been denied any explanation of why he is accused of engaging in partisan politics

Senior commanders need give no explanation why they select a person for a command position, nor need they give an explanation why they remove a person from a command position. It is not a judicial action either way. There is normally not a reason given either way. Commanders are removed every week, usually with no more "official" reason than "loss of confidence." If a commander has been removed for a specific cause, it will normally mean he's on his way out of the service as well.

The reason for this, as he claims, is that if the DOD defines his discussion about "diversity and equity" training is included as the example of partisan politics he wasn't supposed to talk about....that's a tacit admission that the diversity and equity training within the military is indeed partisan politics

That's pretty twisted reasoning. The fact is that he explicitly couched his discussion in classical political terms: The word "Marxism" itself, for instance.

The military training doesn't use any of that terminology at all. Just because it kicks over his personal beliefs doesn't mean it's Marxist or even critical race theory.

Show me one of those Marxist PowerPoint presentations, or it didn't happen.

There are several reasons Lohmeier is in trouble. First, because of the security clearances he holds, he is absolutely required to submit any books he writes touching on military activities for pre-publication review. I had to sign those same documents myself, and the requirement is for life. Even today, if I were to write a military novel, I'm required to submit the draft for review. That's one, and it's a legal issue.

The other is that he chose to go to the public with a disagreement with military policy. That's bad enough for an ordinary enlisted man, but there is no way a commander can do that and remain in a command position. After that, he sets a precedent that anyone can do the same thing. Don't like an order you're given? Take to it to Twitter. This is not necessarily a legal issue. A higher commander can handle such things in house, but one step would certainly be to remove that person from any position of authority. Soldiers who don't recognize authority cannot wield authority.

...then the military would be the ones breaking the rules by incorporating political views into the military.

This isn't a game of playground pitty-pat, "You broke the rules!" "Well, you broke the rules first!" Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If both parties actually did break any "rules," it usually happens that the lower ranking rule-breaker gets punished first because punitive action operates faster at lower echelons; the higher ranking rule breaker gets punished sometime later.

 

[Pommer]

Yep. Some posts even call the organization out as dangerous because of how it is funded.

A state has many arms (ahem!), it has to fund them, some get a “more equal” allotment because “it is an earner*”.
The Military will always be a boondoggle for any party that comes to Power. It’s built-in to the structure of our government. We’re warmongers, own it.

*oh it costs trillions but it buys “fear” of what we might do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Senior commanders need give no explanation why they select a person for a command position, nor need they give an explanation why they remove a person from a command position. It is not a judicial action either way. There is normally not a reason given either way. Commanders are removed every week, usually with no more "official" reason than "loss of confidence." If a commander has been removed for a specific cause, it will normally mean he's on his way out of the service as well.



That's pretty twisted reasoning. The fact is that he explicitly couched his discussion in classical political terms: The word "Marxism" itself, for instance.

The military training doesn't use any of that terminology at all. Just because it kicks over his personal beliefs doesn't mean it's Marxist or even critical race theory.

Show me one of those Marxist PowerPoint presentations, or it didn't happen.

There are several reasons Lohmeier is in trouble. First, because of the security clearances he holds, he is absolutely required to submit any books he writes touching on military activities for pre-publication review. I had to sign those same documents myself, and the requirement is for life. Even today, if I were to write a military novel, I'm required to submit the draft for review. That's one, and it's a legal issue.

The other is that he chose to go to the public with a disagreement with military policy. That's bad enough for an ordinary enlisted man, but there is no way a commander can do that and remain in a command position. After that, he sets a precedent that anyone can do the same thing. Don't like an order you're given? Take to it to Twitter. This is not necessarily a legal issue. A higher commander can handle such things in house, but one step would certainly be to remove that person from any position of authority. Soldiers who don't recognize authority cannot wield authority.



This isn't a game of playground pitty-pat, "You broke the rules!" "Well, you broke the rules first!" Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If both parties actually did break any "rules," it usually happens that the lower ranking rule-breaker gets punished first because punitive action operates faster at lower echelons; the higher ranking rule breaker gets punished sometime later.

Well a Senator disagrees with you....

Wicker Asks Department of Defense to Explain Firing of Space Force Commander

Lt. Col. Lohmeier, a 2006 U.S. Air Force Academy graduate and 15-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force, was fired and reassigned for comments that have not yet been investigated nor determined to have been in violation of any Department of Defense directive. This is unjust and a failure of due process,” Wicker wrote. “The Department of Defense owes Lt. Col. Lohmeier and the public an explanation of why his comments are prohibited by military code.

That's not unreasonable. Let's hear why he was removed and why his words violate policy.

 

[RDKirk]

Well a Senator disagrees with you....

Wicker Asks Department of Defense to Explain Firing of Space Force Commander

Lt. Col. Lohmeier, a 2006 U.S. Air Force Academy graduate and 15-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force, was fired and reassigned for comments that have not yet been investigated nor determined to have been in violation of any Department of Defense directive. This is unjust and a failure of due process,” Wicker wrote. “The Department of Defense owes Lt. Col. Lohmeier and the public an explanation of why his comments are prohibited by military code.

That's not unreasonable. Let's hear why he was removed and why his words violate policy.

Did you notice I used the words "normally" and "usually?"

As I said, commanders get relieved every week across the military without explanation. The fact that Lohmeier has managed to raise this to the attention of a like-minded Senator does not change the fact that commanders get relieved every week across the military without explanation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you notice I used the words "normally" and "usually?"

As I said, commanders get relieved every week across the military without explanation. The fact that Lohmeier has managed to raise this to the attention of a like-minded Senator does not change the fact that commanders get relieved every week across the military without explanation.

Uh huh. Well hopefully we get an explanation.